Talk:M1917 Enfield

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1917 Enfield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / British / Chinese / European / World War I / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	British military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need to do more work on this article but am time constrained right now.--TGC55 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the M1917 as an "Eddystone"

Beyond listening to both of my grandfathers refer to this rifle this way (one was an Army mechanic and driver, the other repaired engines for the USAAF in WWII), multiple military histories, and the like... I need to try and find a non-printed reference for you. I'll get back to you.

http://www.highspeedlane.net/m1917/1917rcvr.jpg

http://www.odcmp.com/Forms/M1917.pdf

Right, many of the old timers (my uncles) and other old vets when I was a teenager in the 50's called the M-1917 rifle the "Enfield" and sometimes "the Eddystone". "Eddystone Arsenal" was a non-government arms manufacturer owned by Reminington in a suburb of Philedelphia, PA. Probably annexed by Philedelphia in the intravening years. You brought back many memories with your few lines. Thanks a lot. BTW, the M-1917 was my first rifle over 22 LR, so there is a soft spot for the model. --TGC55 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was made to the part on Alvin York- although there is much debate over what he used, the general consensus seems to be that he actually did use a 1903. Seargeant York's son claims that he did, and I think he and the Guns & Ammo staff would know.

That is not the "general consensus", and the Guns & Ammo staff are hardly authoritative sources. To drag non-participants in, the curator of the US Army Ordnance Museum maintains it was an Enfield. Since this is a pissing match no one can win, I've edited the relevant section to reflect the reality that no one knows.

Enfield in colonial service

The American colonial army, known as the Philippine Army, used the Enfield at the beginning of the Pacific War. According to Philippine historian Ricardo Jose, colonial troops experienced weak extractors which tended to break. Also, there was an attempt to use Philippine wood to manufacture replacement stocks for the Enfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.38.253 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extractor was not the issue. The P1914 and M1917 had issues with the one-piece ejector and spring breaking in use. There was nothing sinister or special about Filipino problems with M1917 ejector srings, all users reported problems.

Enfield in Axis service

The military force of the Axis Second Philippine Republic called the Bureau of Constabulary was armed with the M1917. It is said that the Japanese also used captured Enfields.

Service after World War II

Could someone please cite some sources for the contention that the rifle was used in Korea and Vietnam? Otherwise it is simply a baseless assertion, as the rifle was declared obsolete in 1945.

The rifle was declared "obsolete" for active US service in 1945. It remained in use in many places, to include Denmark and Greece, as a reserve forces rifle, until the end of the Cold War. M1917s returned from those countries have been sold by the US CMP over the last few years.

My Grandfather was in veitnam and through a photo i can see an M1917 with a scope on it and the distinguishing veiw of the rear sights protective ears and the belly of the rifle. their were some post WW1 rifles still being used because of their reliability.

Maximum Range

The maximum range on this rifle should be fixed. The article claims over 5km range which is simply ridiculous, seeing as the longest range shot ever is 1.4km less than the claimed range, and was accomplished with far superior equipment. The rifle never had any sights attached that would allow it to achieve such a range, and could only potentially hit a target at that range when used as part of a squad volley fire with no wind or other adverse conditions. Thus, this range is not a capability of the rifle, but of a bunch of rifles used together.

You can clearly see the range in the reference (page 31-33) is not for the rifle, but for the cartridge. This claim of range should be moved to the .30-06 Springfield article and not be linked to a rifle that clearly couldn't make a shot at that range.

--142.167.27.183 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum "Sight Range" is 1600 yards. The maximum range at a bore angle of about 45 degrees is ~5 km. -- hmaag (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for M1903 Springfield article as I feel these discussions can easily be merged.

--142.167.27.183 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1917 Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M1917 Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M 1917 rifle

I have a M 1917 rifle serial number 0606, was wondering where it was manufactured and approximate date. 64.246.109.253 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

contemporary use

 This part of the article is particularly poorly written. As a "contemporary use" is obviously time dependent, a date should be specified for any such entry, as in "as of XXXX". A citation for such is also desirable, at the least, and worst of all,  there isn't even a country or service branch specified for "ceremonial and drill use".

I am not a small arms historian and don't have a particular interest in digging in on that, or would fill in those details, so that makes me just another critic, my apologies for that!Cykid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]